I, along with 58 others, swam the Southern LCM championship on 7/29-30/2017. We did so in the University of New Orleans Pool in New Orleans, LA just as we have for years with the exception of the Hurricane Katrina year and several subsequent years.
My problem is that, when I checked my times of the USMS website, the times were in red with an explanation that they could not be used as official for records because the pool's measurement was not certified as it had a moveable bulkhead. I emailed Southern and asked why the certification had not been sent in and they replied that it had been sent but it had an error and USMS would not let it be corrected. This bummed me out as I had 4 top 10 swims and 5 Southern record swims for my age group.
This seems to be an awful price to pay for the innocent, dues and event paying participant who has no control pool certification. All we know is that the bulkhead is at the far end of the pool, 50 meters, where it always has been for LCM meets in the past. There is nothing obvious that we can detect or correct to make the pool certifiable and there is no way to make sure the form is sent in correctly.
There must be some way USMS can rectify this situation without invalidating the times of the swimmers who invested time and money in the meet.
Bob -
Let me try to answer, based on my personal opinion and not speaking for USMS, with the input from my better half - the SWIMS coordinator:
1) USMS had no knowledge that the Race Director was retiring nor, in imho, should that have any bearing on the decisions that person made. If it did, shame on them for being Race Director. Retirement should not affect how the Race Director did their job.
2) This was part of the problem since there were only measurements on the inner and outside lanes. Since the middle lane was short and the outer lanes were ok, there was no way to determine if the other lanes were of certifiable length.
3) It is not USMS's responsbility to check to see if times were affected or not. There is no way that this can be checked nor factored into the decision.
4) Because of the lack of individual lane measurements, there was no way to determine if some lanes' times could count.
5) USMS does not know any of this prior to the meet because all of the info is submitted sometime after the meet. The responsibility falls entirely on the Meet Host to measure and communicate as needed. Mary Beth received the pool measurements in October. You can see how there is little USMS can do except deal with it after-the-fact which reinforces the Meet Host's responsibility to do it correctly in the first place.
As I answer you, I think back to 1994 when I set a world record in the 200 back and it almost did not count because of how the event was titled. I would have been devastated if it had not counted. So, I really feel your pain. But, as I mentioned a number of times, the responsibility for the pool being legal falls entirely to the host organization and the LMSC. There is nothing USMS can do except deal with the problem after-the-fact.
Although I had no direct responsibility for answering your post, I decided to respond because masters swimmers should NOT assume the pool is legal when bulkheads are involved. Although the Meet Host should take the lead in assuring the swimmers that the course is of legal length, they often do not take this aspect seriously. Thus, the swimmers should pressure the Meet Host to make sure it is legal.
Now, going into the detail a bit. The middle lane was measured three times during the meet (before, after the first session, and end) and was short all three times - by as much as 1/4". While this may seem inconsequential, short is short.
Now, tongue-in-cheek, I have often said that USMS should have a fudge factor for short pools. This fudge factor would be applied to times so that swims can count - even when swum in short pools. No one seems interested in my solution to the "short pool" issue. :)
I wish my response could mitigate your frustration, but I know it can't. And, I doubt it is any consolation that this meet caused considerable stress on Mary Beth because it meant times would not count. At most, I hope this demonstrates that many factors went into the decision. Too bad, the meet host was NOT proactive when this whole thing could have been prevented.
I do hope, for USMS' sake, that you will compete again in the future.
Respectfully,
Paul Windrath
Bob -
Let me try to answer, based on my personal opinion and not speaking for USMS, with the input from my better half - the SWIMS coordinator:
1) USMS had no knowledge that the Race Director was retiring nor, in imho, should that have any bearing on the decisions that person made. If it did, shame on them for being Race Director. Retirement should not affect how the Race Director did their job.
2) This was part of the problem since there were only measurements on the inner and outside lanes. Since the middle lane was short and the outer lanes were ok, there was no way to determine if the other lanes were of certifiable length.
3) It is not USMS's responsbility to check to see if times were affected or not. There is no way that this can be checked nor factored into the decision.
4) Because of the lack of individual lane measurements, there was no way to determine if some lanes' times could count.
5) USMS does not know any of this prior to the meet because all of the info is submitted sometime after the meet. The responsibility falls entirely on the Meet Host to measure and communicate as needed. Mary Beth received the pool measurements in October. You can see how there is little USMS can do except deal with it after-the-fact which reinforces the Meet Host's responsibility to do it correctly in the first place.
As I answer you, I think back to 1994 when I set a world record in the 200 back and it almost did not count because of how the event was titled. I would have been devastated if it had not counted. So, I really feel your pain. But, as I mentioned a number of times, the responsibility for the pool being legal falls entirely to the host organization and the LMSC. There is nothing USMS can do except deal with the problem after-the-fact.
Although I had no direct responsibility for answering your post, I decided to respond because masters swimmers should NOT assume the pool is legal when bulkheads are involved. Although the Meet Host should take the lead in assuring the swimmers that the course is of legal length, they often do not take this aspect seriously. Thus, the swimmers should pressure the Meet Host to make sure it is legal.
Now, going into the detail a bit. The middle lane was measured three times during the meet (before, after the first session, and end) and was short all three times - by as much as 1/4". While this may seem inconsequential, short is short.
Now, tongue-in-cheek, I have often said that USMS should have a fudge factor for short pools. This fudge factor would be applied to times so that swims can count - even when swum in short pools. No one seems interested in my solution to the "short pool" issue. :)
I wish my response could mitigate your frustration, but I know it can't. And, I doubt it is any consolation that this meet caused considerable stress on Mary Beth because it meant times would not count. At most, I hope this demonstrates that many factors went into the decision. Too bad, the meet host was NOT proactive when this whole thing could have been prevented.
I do hope, for USMS' sake, that you will compete again in the future.
Respectfully,
Paul Windrath
